Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing

by Tennisanorak Wed 01 Feb 2012, 08:57

First topic message reminder :

Given that one of Federer/ Nadal/ Djokovic have to lose before the finals and two have to lose before the tournament ends, it is a strong era. Those are 3 potential all time greats playing together. They could end up with more than 40 grand slams between them.

However, given that the top 4 have made it to the semis in 3 of the 4 slams (with Federer narrowly missing out at Wimbledon), it is a weak era.

Which is it? Or is it neither?

by bogbrush Wed 01 Feb 2012, 22:22

JuliusHMarx wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Or he's well past his best Craig.

You did notice he's past 30 now, didnt you?

Sorry but that doesn't quite wash. I would fully agree if he had fallen right off the scale ie slam defeats in early rounds and other titles drying up but that isn't the case. Towards the end of last year we had a number of Fed fans voting on a poll on here that he was playing better tennis than he was a few years ago and he won a string of titles and like I said he managed to beat that terrifying physical specimen that is Novak Djokovic in a slam and had match points against him in another. Now since a certain Fed fan is adamant physicality and court conditions are the reason Fed can't compete (nothing to do with the current crop of players being fantastic players) then how is this so if he does still compete with perhaps the most physical player in the world?

CC - did you see my post on how difficult is is for ANY player to win a slam past the age of 28? Sampras insists he kept getting better with age, yet dropped way down the rankings.
It's almost impossible to keep up with players who are younger, fitter, hungrier and with so many less miles on the clock. Also the game changes and as players get older they struggle to adapt to the new way the game is played. That's just the natural evolution of the game.

You've got no hope of explaining this to Craig, it would cost him too much in terms of Murrays standing.

by Tenez Wed 01 Feb 2012, 22:27

bogbrush wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Or he's well past his best Craig.

You did notice he's past 30 now, didnt you?

Sorry but that doesn't quite wash. I would fully agree if he had fallen right off the scale ie slam defeats in early rounds and other titles drying up but that isn't the case. Towards the end of last year we had a number of Fed fans voting on a poll on here that he was playing better tennis than he was a few years ago and he won a string of titles and like I said he managed to beat that terrifying physical specimen that is Novak Djokovic in a slam and had match points against him in another. Now since a certain Fed fan is adamant physicality and court conditions are the reason Fed can't compete (nothing to do with the current crop of players being fantastic players) then how is this so if he does still compete with perhaps the most physical player in the world?

CC - did you see my post on how difficult is is for ANY player to win a slam past the age of 28? Sampras insists he kept getting better with age, yet dropped way down the rankings.
It's almost impossible to keep up with players who are younger, fitter, hungrier and with so many less miles on the clock. Also the game changes and as players get older they struggle to adapt to the new way the game is played. That's just the natural evolution of the game.
You've got no hope of explaining this to Craig, it would cost him too much in terms of Murrays standing.

I second that.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 01 Feb 2012, 22:36

JuliusHMarx wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Or he's well past his best Craig.

You did notice he's past 30 now, didnt you?

Sorry but that doesn't quite wash. I would fully agree if he had fallen right off the scale ie slam defeats in early rounds and other titles drying up but that isn't the case. Towards the end of last year we had a number of Fed fans voting on a poll on here that he was playing better tennis than he was a few years ago and he won a string of titles and like I said he managed to beat that terrifying physical specimen that is Novak Djokovic in a slam and had match points against him in another. Now since a certain Fed fan is adamant physicality and court conditions are the reason Fed can't compete (nothing to do with the current crop of players being fantastic players) then how is this so if he does still compete with perhaps the most physical player in the world?

CC - did you see my post on how difficult is is for ANY player to win a slam past the age of 28? Sampras insists he kept getting better with age, yet dropped way down the rankings.
It's almost impossible to keep up with players who are younger, fitter, hungrier and with so many less miles on the clock. Also the game changes and as players get older they struggle to adapt to the new way the game is played. That's just the natural evolution of the game.

That still does not explain how he came so close to beating the king of physicality (Novak Djokovic) last year and actually beating him as well. After all those that feel this is a weak era then surely Federer's GOATness would negate any disadvantage of ageing. After all Ivanisevic won a slam in his 30's and he wasn't a GOAT and I do believe Connors and Lendl are another two to win a slam in their 30's as did Pete Sampras to name but a few. In addition Agassi won a slam aged 32 in 2003.

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 22:44

Strong era started from 2008 and it will run upto till Nadal retires. In that strong era Nadal has been to 9 finals out of the available 16. He has won 9 finals over Federer (who as per nadal fans is a weak player anyway), Berdych, Soderling, Murray and an exhausted Djoko. The list of the runner up is really legendary specially it includes Soderling and Berdych.

During the weaker era nadal won 4 slams including a win over deadly Marian Puerta.
So this is the strong era, yeah totally agree. An ageing Fed, djoko, nadal and Murray are strong era. If Murray had played between 2003-2007, he surely would have ended up with 16 slams.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:11

CaledonianCraig wrote:....After all those that feel this is a weak era.....

For the 3rd time - I don't recall anyone saying this is a weak era.

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:18

Who will be the first player to break into top 4 from the chasing pack?

by bogbrush Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:40

stratocumulus wrote:Who will be the first player to break into top 4 from the chasing pack?

David Ferrer probably.

Or Gael Monfils, he's really good too.

Maybe if they could just reach a Masters final, or something. Anything..

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:45

bogbrush wrote:
stratocumulus wrote:Who will be the first player to break into top 4 from the chasing pack?
David Ferrer probably.

Or Gael Monfils, he's really good too.

Maybe if they could just reach a Masters final, or something. Anything..

I think Tomic, because his time has probably come.

by bogbrush Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:47

stratocumulus wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
stratocumulus wrote:Who will be the first player to break into top 4 from the chasing pack?
David Ferrer probably.

Or Gael Monfils, he's really good too.

Maybe if they could just reach a Masters final, or something. Anything..

I think Tomic, because his time has probably come.

Yeah, the top two there are very ordinary.

But they pass for top challengers to the 4 in this laughable no-depth era.

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:48

Yes Ljubicic at number 3 showed great depth.

by stratocumulus Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:50

amritia3ee wrote:Yes Ljubicic at number 3 showed great depth.

Ever heard of Ivan Dodig? Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing - Page 3 3933776953

by amritia3ee Wed 01 Feb 2012, 23:57

Yes, why do you ask.

by **laverfan** Thu 02 Feb 2012, 00:05

Re the OP, an 'era' (undefined so far) is neither weak or strong, because an 'era' has no unambiguous definition. Wink

Using calendar years has the same issues, as players play across many years.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 04:34

Tennisanorak wrote:Wow, this thread has been a lot of fun.

Even the great Sampras in his prime at Wimbledon had credible threats in Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Agassi, Philippousis and Rafter to name a few! (Add in Tim Henman if you wish). I'm not saying they beat him, because they didn't, but any one of those could have beaten him.

Ok you seem to forget John Isner taking Nadal to 5 sets at last year's french open. You seem to forget Victor Troicki almost knocking Djoko out of the USO 2010, and there are other tough matches all the top guys have had in earlier rounds. And by the way you answered your own question they didn't beat Pete very often but gave him a tough go every now and then. Just like Hewitt and Ferrer did not beat Novak this year at the AO. For me as I have explained a top heavy draw is much harder than an even parity tour with talent more evenly disbursed across the top 20. And it isn't subjective it is based on the nature of tournament tennis. The top 4 or 5 guys dominate any era they are in and determine who wins grandslams that define the game. You don't have to beat the entire top 20 en masse, just 3 or 4 seeded players on your way to the title. Maybe Parity would be more important if tennis grandslams were scored like football seasons. For example, the winner of a grandslam would be determined by a round robin between the top 16 seeds and whoever got the most points. But the nature of tournament tennis dictates a top heavy tour is going to be more difficult by definition for lower ranked players to win slams.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 04:38

That still does not explain how he came so close to beating the king of physicality (Novak Djokovic) last year and actually beating him as well. After all those that feel this is a weak era then surely Federer's GOATness would negate any disadvantage of ageing. After all Ivanisevic won a slam in his 30's and he wasn't a GOAT and I do believe Connors and Lendl are another two to win a slam in their 30's as did Pete Sampras to name but a few. In addition Agassi won a slam aged 32 in 2003..Caledonian Craig

Precisely, Agassi at a couple months shy of 33 years old was the number 1 rated player in the world at the start of 2003. Roger the Goat of all Goat's is hanging on to the #3 ranking by a thread at 30, maybe because the competition is stronger now than the obviously weak era of the early 2000s.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 04:42

stratocumulus wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:Yes Ljubicic at number 3 showed great depth.

Ever heard of Ivan Dodig?

obviously, this era isn't strong because never in the history of tennis has a number one player lost in middling tournament to a lower ranked player playing the match of his life. I mean that reflects so poorly on Nadal.

I love how the weak era/fed apologists want their cake and eat it to. I mean the current era is not strong because the top guys never lose. But because Nadal loses to Dodig or murray lost back to back matches while on a slump to guys ranked outside the top 100 then this era is weak. So what is it do the top guys losing make this era not strong or the top guys winning too much? What seems confusing is logically inconsistent arguments of the fed apologists.

Basically, the fed apologists own arguments are logically inconsistent. Because when looked at an analysed by any facts of an objective nature the late 90s till mid 2000s were soft.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 02 Feb 2012, 08:17

I know this weak/strong era thing is a prickly subject (and yes Julius not here but we have seen 'certain posters' on multiple threads saying this is a weak era or not strong). It brought out comments in the past from people saying that claiming that eras were weak was disrespecting the great champions of that particular era did they not? So why then do we see a certain group of people so keen to paint the here and now as weak?

Ask Roger Federer and he'll tell you it certainly is not in any way shape or form is it weak hence no slams since 2010. Even accounting for a drop in form (which many of their own fans were claiming less than six months ago that he was playing the best tennis better than when he was in his prime or at least on a par and that includes Tenez) and claiming physicality wins over all then how come Fed's GOATness can't overcome all this mediocrity that 'some people' feel is awash in this era?

Ask pundits, tennis experts and ex pros alike and you cannot tell me they'd paint this as anything but a very competitive, strong age of tennis hence why even the GOAT is finding slams impossible to come by.

Still not convinced - well then why in this age do we have a GOAT (Roger Federer), Rafae Nadal (tipped by some at one time but not sure now to beat Federer's record and become GOAT) and multiple slam winner Novak Djokovic (who with four or five excellent seasons could quite conceivably be pressing Federer for the GOAT title) On the outside looking in we have Andy Murray (I believe in the top ten most successful hard court players of all-time, sixth most successful Masters Cup player of all-time, multiple slam finalist but yet to break his duck) and Juan Martin Del Potro (a slam winner returning from injury and racing back up the rankings). And take into account the other top players such as Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer to name but a few all of which have beaten the very best players in crunch games before and given them many a tough match.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 08:27

Excellent analysis Craig, the logical inconsistencies of the fed apologists themselves are what doom their arguments. Because Nadal or murray have some bad losses like anyone else how can this era be strong? And then conversly how is this era strong when the big 4 don't lose enough? Roger is the goat, but at just over 30 so passed his prime that this era isn't strong? Then how do you explain Agassi, Sampras, winning slams into their 30s? The lack of grandslam accomplishment of the rest of the top players makes this era weak than how do you explain nalby, davy, ljubi, blake and their lack of success at the grandslams which is lightyears worse? How do you explain the bevy of one slam wonders between 1996 and 2004 who would not have a snowball's chance in Hades of winning a slam today?

by CaledonianCraig Thu 02 Feb 2012, 08:33

I suppose another little clue to throw in there is Tim Henman. He, like Andy Murray, made it to world No.4 in the early 2000's but by his own admissions bless him he has said Murray is a far better player than he was. Another piece of evidence I await to be debunked.

by legendkillar Thu 02 Feb 2012, 08:45

As 2003-2007 was weak. Some stats here for the 2 players central to the argument.

2008 onwards

Federer - 30 Finals. 17 Titles. Win % of 56.6
Nadal - 38 Finals. 23 Titles. Win % of 60.5

Federer - 317 matches played. 263 won. Win % 82.9
Nadal - 339 matches played. 297 won. Win % 87.6

Federer - 73 weeks at no.1
Nadal - 102 weeks at no.1

by CaledonianCraig Thu 02 Feb 2012, 08:49

I do think weak is the wrong word to use though. I'd prefer something like not as strong as today say circa 2010. There were still champions then and great winners but just not the same calibre of today in my honest opinion and you'd find in tennis pros opinions as well.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 08:50

Actually legend, my argument is that tennis was weak prior to 2003. And it started getting progressively stronger around 2005 and the new stronger era really kicked off in 2007. So I don't agree that tennis was in a doldrums for just 4 years. Probably 1998/or 99-2007

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 08:58

socal1976 wrote:Actually legend, my argument is that tennis was weak prior to 2003. And it started getting progressively stronger around 2005 and the new stronger era really kicked off in 2007. So I don't agree that tennis was in a doldrums for just 4 years. Probably 1998/or 99-2007

The goldfish is at it again...get out of your fish tank!

by legendkillar Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:02

socal,

I provided those stats for the lazy git who bemoans 'weak' era's. Shows the bias in the argument.

Don't mention 'weak' era in the time of a certain Sampras. You will get it in the earhole! Laugh

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:17

I also think weak is not necessarily as correct as saying relatively weaker. It isn't ever easy to dominate the tour. But in my mind the late 90s till mid 2000s was a period that was not as strong as the period of talent immediately before and immediately coming after it. Agassi and sampras started ageing, the players like Lendl, Edberg, Courier, and Becker that had been part of the stronger era before got old and retired and new talent of that caliber didn't rise up to replace those guys. It is very hard to put an exact date on this process either when it started or when it ended. These processes were gradual. It isn't like you can say Dec 31 1996 was strong and Jan 1, 1997 was weak. The weakening really started earlier as the older guys aged and new comparable talent didn't replace them. So you could start it lets say in late 96 or early 97, but at that time AA and Pete were still superstars at or near peak. But by the middle of the weak era lets say 2000,2001, 02, 03, and 04 it was easy to see that the talent pool at the top of the game was no where close to what it had been a few years earlier.

by Veejay Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:18

At the moment we have one player winning all the slams,so its not much different to the so called Federer era
While there are more players in the conversation,i.e Nadal and Federer,I rate Nadals chances slim if Djokovic is still in the draw and Federer may have the game to frustrate Djokovic,but the truth is every season gets harder and harder for him as he declines.
At least back in Federers era Nadal had a realistic shot a beating Roger
Until Murray can actually win a set in a grand slam final or make finals more consistently,I don't think he should really be placed in the conversation
So its a one man show again,like a couple of years back with a possible second player challenging,perhaps more Federer with a realistic shot as he matches up better then Nadal does and 7 straight loses basically says it all.But I still don't rate Rogers chances as good as Nadals chances were to dethrone Roger
This year will be telling whether Djokovic continues to dominate or finds it hard to defend all his titles,I thought the dynamics could change if Nadal had won AO,but Djokovic has started the season where he left off,and even a titanic battle like the final couldnt dethrone him

by bogbrush Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:33

The whole nonsense about this era being especially strong is based on three things;

* A British player is good, but not good enough. This is very disappointing to many who thought Slams were a matter of "when", not "if". Therefore it heps to ramp the period to elevate his achievements.
* The Fedal argument, or more broadly fan enthusiasm.
* People who think that running around for 6 hours and retrieving everything, and hitting big baseline shots is "great", ignoring the dependence on medical and technical advances.

To buy into it you also have to believe that Ferrer, Monfils, Tsonga, etc are Slam winners in other eras but are kept out of semi-finals on the whole by a Godlike elite. That's a stretch.

As an aside, you also have to simultaneously belive that David Ferrer did no better at Slams when he was at his physical peak in the weaker era but that this was because his career is running in the opposite direction. Sort of like Benjamin Button. Oh, and Mardy Fish too.

It's really not very grown up.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:39

Explanation please.

If this era is not especially strong then does that disqualify Roger Federer from all GOAT discussions? After all he can't win a slam for toffee in a not especially strong era at just 30 when Sampras, Agassi and Lendl could all manage that feat at an older age.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:40

Actually the highest rank of #4 that David Ferrer attained was I believe after the USO in 2006. And besides David Ferrer has been a pretty consistent performer for the last 6 years, he has never even gotten to a grandslam final I don't see how he is determinative of this eras strength he is just a very fast, fit, great returner who is deathly consistent. Not really determinative.

And the other example is fish, a guy who you and other fed apologists bring up. But fish was always a talent who happened to lose 30 pounds later in his career. When he was heavy he couldn't move and had difficulty even making it a full season.

by Veejay Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:41

CaledonianCraig wrote:Explanation please.

If this era is not especially strong then does that disqualify Roger Federer from all GOAT discussions? After all he can't win a slam for toffee in a not especially strong era at just 30 when Sampras, Agassi and Lendl could all manage that feat at an older age.

Where Sampras,Agassi and Lendl so good they could win a grand slam at 30 or was he field so weak that a 30 year old could win a major?

by CaledonianCraig Thu 02 Feb 2012, 09:50

Well if it is the former then Federer has to be questioned as GOAT considering he can't match their feat in this era or if it is the latter then my point is proven that tennis wasn't quite so strong in the early 2000's when Sampras and Agassi won slams in their 30's.

by Veejay Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:02

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well if it is the former then Federer has to be questioned as GOAT considering he can't match their feat in this era or if it is the latter then my point is proven that tennis wasn't quite so strong in the early 2000's when Sampras and Agassi won slams in their 30's.

The point is that it cannot be proven to a 100% certainty,but its no surprise to see you going for the former Very Happy

Whats you're issue with Roger? Don't you like it when the pros of the sport call him the GOAT?
You seem to have a real issue with that,almost like you're losing sleep over it,cause you keep mentioning it in every single one of your comments

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:14

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well if it is the former then Federer has to be questioned as GOAT considering he can't match their feat in this era or if it is the latter then my point is proven that tennis wasn't quite so strong in the early 2000's when Sampras and Agassi won slams in their 30's.

Exactly, another case of the federer apologists wanting their cake and eating it too. Veejay has touched on it, maybe the field was weak when Sampras and Agassi won slams in the early 2000s. Isn't that what exactly what I have been saying. And maybe Fed not doing so is a reflection of the strength of the Era. By the way Roger was way less broken down and deteriorated than the Pete Sampras who won the USO in 2002. I believe Sampras had fallen out of the top ten entirely.

by bogbrush Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:14

Veejay wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Well if it is the former then Federer has to be questioned as GOAT considering he can't match their feat in this era or if it is the latter then my point is proven that tennis wasn't quite so strong in the early 2000's when Sampras and Agassi won slams in their 30's.

The point is it cannot be proven to a 100% certainty,but its no surprise to see you going for the former
Whats you're issue with Roger? Don't you like it when the pros of the sport call him the GOAT?
You seem to have a real issue with that,almost like you're losing sleep over it,cause you mention it in every single one of your comments

It's just a misunderstanding that posters like myself are as emotionally attached to Federer as others are to their favourites.

by bogbrush Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:19

I love the phrase "Fed apologists". It's like he's had such a cr@p career that people need to explain it away.

It's mostly said by a guy whose hero is on 5.

I know. Rolling Eyes

Answers on a postcard please.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:19

Nothing against Fed, but some of his Barcelona/Roger Federer fans aren't all the endearing at times. As for our fascination with our favorite players. I have started threads on Nadal, Murray, Fed, on tennis in general as well as many on Novak. I don't feel the need to continually bemoan bigger balls and slower courts to make a certain someone look better than he already does. In fact if you looked at my goat list, I listed Fed as the greatest player of all time. But fed fan's should expect some blowback if they continually knock today's best players, complain about the conditions, complain about supposed cheating, the inferior play of other champions, or accuse Roger's main rivals of doping without proof.

by Veejay Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:20

bogbrush wrote:I love the phrase "Fed apologists". It's like he's had such a cr@p career that people need to explain it away.

It's mostly said by a guy whose hero is on 5.

I know. Answers on a postcard please.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:23

bogbrush wrote:I love the phrase "Fed apologists". It's like he's had such a cr@p career that people need to explain it away.

It's mostly said by a guy whose hero is on 5.

I know. Answers on a postcard please.

Exactly, BB have made the same point myself. Why is it that a certain segment of Fed fans feels like they have continually pump him up, make excuses for his failings and so forth. When as you rightly have pointed out the man won 16 slams. He doesn't need to be pumped up unfairly, he doesn't need his fans moaning about modern strings and conditions. Roger Federer won every single slam on slowed courts and with luxlon strings and has won at least as many titles with his feet as he has won with his strokes. If anyone should whine about slowed down conditions it is the Andy Roddicks and Ivo karlovic's of the world and their fans. But it is the fed fans who continually have to rain on everyone else's parade despite Roger's incredible accomplishments, which is why this type of behavior is even more infuriating.

by Veejay Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:27

socal1976 wrote:Nothing against Fed, but some of his Barcelona/Roger Federer fans aren't all the endearing at times. As for our fascination with our favorite players. I have started threads on Nadal, Murray, Fed, on tennis in general as well as many on Novak. I don't feel the need to continually bemoan bigger balls and slower courts to make a certain someone look better than he already does. In fact if you looked at my goat list, I listed Fed as the greatest player of all time. But fed fan's should expect some blowback if they continually knock today's best players, complain about the conditions, complain about supposed cheating, the inferior play of other champions, or accuse Roger's main rivals of doping without proof.

There it is again,you believe there is a problem and then you go on to say theres no proof
Suspicions have nothing to do with who faced whoever and who is whoever's rival.Suspicions have to do with substantial evidence linking that particular athlete/s to banned substances
If hypothetically the athletes in question were playing in another era,not the same era Federer has competed in,there would still be suspicions or accusations if there was enough evidence to support such allegations.The 2 don't go hand in hand.This is bizarre coming from someone who believes there is a problem in the sport

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:29

Craig

If Federer can't win "slam for toffee" then what has this make Murray??

laughing

by CaledonianCraig Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:30

Veejay wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Well if it is the former then Federer has to be questioned as GOAT considering he can't match their feat in this era or if it is the latter then my point is proven that tennis wasn't quite so strong in the early 2000's when Sampras and Agassi won slams in their 30's.

The point is it cannot be proven to a 100% certainty,but its no surprise to see you going for the former
Whats you're issue with Roger? Don't you like it when the pros of the sport call him the GOAT?
You seem to have a real issue with that,almost like you're losing sleep over it,cause you mention it in every single one of your comments

I have no issue with Roger Federer and if you look back through my posts you will see many times I have said he is the GOAT. Wait until I starting posting guff about him a la Tenez with Rafael Nadal then you can say I have a problem. My point on the matter is as socal says that the Federer fans want to have their cake and eat it. He is the GOAT but yet they cannot afford one nod of acknowledgement to an age of tennis when the GOAT can't compete. That is where I have the problem. I freely say Federer is the GOAT but do you ever hear certain Federer fans giving credit where it is due to the Rafael Nadal's and Novak Djokovic's of this world. No. As an Englishman would say....how very unsporting.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:31

Roger Federer won every single slam on slowed courts and with luxlon strings and has won at least as many titles with his feet as he has won with his strokes.

Exactly, with Federer it's a healthy mixture of 48% feet 52% skills..the top 2 it's 90% feet and 10% skills. Whistle

by Veejay Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:36

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Veejay wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Well if it is the former then Federer has to be questioned as GOAT considering he can't match their feat in this era or if it is the latter then my point is proven that tennis wasn't quite so strong in the early 2000's when Sampras and Agassi won slams in their 30's.

The point is it cannot be proven to a 100% certainty,but its no surprise to see you going for the former
Whats you're issue with Roger? Don't you like it when the pros of the sport call him the GOAT?
You seem to have a real issue with that,almost like you're losing sleep over it,cause you mention it in every single one of your comments

I have no issue with Roger Federer and if you look back through my posts you will see many times I have said he is the GOAT. Wait until I starting posting guff about him a la Tenez with Rafael Nadal then you can say I have a problem. My point on the matter is as socal says that the Federer fans want to have their cake and eat it. He is the GOAT but yet they cannot afford one nod of acknowledgement to an age of tennis when the GOAT can't compete. That is where I have the problem. I freely say Federer is the GOAT but do you ever hear certain Federer fans giving credit where it is due to the Rafael Nadal's and Novak Djokovic's of this world. No. As an Englishman would say....how very unsporting.

Well I am new here so I cant really comment on that.
I would like to think I give credit where credit is due,but I will also admit that my suspicions prevent me of doing that for certain athletes

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:38

CaledonianCraig wrote:.... until I starting posting guff about him a la Tenez with Rafael Nadal then you can say I have a problem.

Everything I say about Nadal is right. The guff is on you with laughable phrases like "Murray is better than Federer". YOu are just way too much of fan to realise how much you are a fan.

Unlike you supporting Murray, my supporting of Federer has nothing to do with nationality. That gives me a good head start over you in terms of objectivity! And our respective arguments just prove that.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:44

Tenez wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:.... until I starting posting guff about him a la Tenez with Rafael Nadal then you can say I have a problem.

Everything I say about Nadal is right. The guff is on you with laughable phrases like "Murray is better than Federer". YOu are just way too much of fan to realise how much you are a fan.

Unlike you supporting Murray, my supporting of Federer has nothing to do with nationality. That gives me a good head start over you in terms of objectivity! And our respective arguments just prove that.

Exactly, Henman was good but I was never going to support him over Agassi, now same with Murray who is also good (probably bit better, its close) but I wouldn't support him over Federer/Dolgopolov/Del Potro.

by socal1976 Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:46

Veejay, you have produced evidence that we all new existed that doping takes place in tennis. Oh my god, not shocking or refutted by anyone. But you have not produced direct evidence that Nadal is doped up. But yet you discount him, until I see a positive test result I can't convict the man. Not on your viewing his body on television.

And Craig hits it right on the head, the conduct of some, not all fed fans is a bit unsporting. Cut down all the great players today, the style of play, their supposed unproven doping, their inferiority, their cheating; and then well what do you expect other people's reaction to be? And the fact that fed doesn't need apologists, and yet a certain segment of his fans spend most of their posts acting like apologists makes it even more annoying.

by bogbrush Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:51

socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I love the phrase "Fed apologists". It's like he's had such a cr@p career that people need to explain it away.

It's mostly said by a guy whose hero is on 5.

I know. Answers on a postcard please.

Exactly, BB have made the same point myself. Why is it that a certain segment of Fed fans feels like they have continually pump him up, make excuses for his failings and so forth. When as you rightly have pointed out the man won 16 slams. He doesn't need to be pumped up unfairly, he doesn't need his fans moaning about modern strings and conditions. Roger Federer won every single slam on slowed courts and with luxlon strings and has won at least as many titles with his feet as he has won with his strokes. If anyone should whine about slowed down conditions it is the Andy Roddicks and Ivo karlovic's of the world and their fans. But it is the fed fans who continually have to rain on everyone else's parade despite Roger's incredible accomplishments, which is why this type of behavior is even more infuriating.

Here's your problem summarised by yourself.

YOU think some of us raise concerns about the courts, conditions, risk of doping and style of play because you think we're fannishly trying to ramp Rogers standing. We're not (or speaking for myself, I'm not), we're expressing dissatisfaction with the direction of the sport.
I can assure you that if he was being skilled off the court by Dolgopolov or whoever I'd be leading the applause for the new champion.

Your comments are a judgement on yourself and your own motivations.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:54

The game has become too rewarding to the defensive/sit on the fence players, that is why it can be suggested some Fed fans sound unsporting. The game is rewarding mediocrity.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:55

I can assure you that if he was being skilled off the court by Dolgopolov or whoever I'd be leading the applause for the new champion.

AMEN

by Tenez Thu 02 Feb 2012, 10:58

bogbrush wrote:Here's your problem summarised by yourself.

YOU think some of us raise concerns about the courts, conditions, risk of doping and style of play because you think we're fannishly trying to ramp Rogers standing. We're not (or speaking for myself, I'm not), we're expressing dissatisfaction with the direction of the sport.

Your comments are a judgement on yourself and your own motivations.

Spot on. If Nadal could mix it in his game and beat Federer outsmarting him instead of outpowering him, I would be supporting Nadal. And probably Nadal would not need so much time in between points, get on court coaching and so on....

by Sponsored content